If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

Furthermore, the proof always must be supplied by the one making the claim, not the other way around.

Yet more evidence (er... proof?) of your ignorance of how science works.

If you are unable to support the claims, just say so. Getting upset and ranting does you no good. It simply reveals the weakness of your argument.

I know how science is supposed to work and how it was once used, but clearly that is not what you are speaking about.

Theodosius Dobzhansky in his "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Quote

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

R. C. Lewontin

Quote

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory

People here think that creationists eaither can't read, or write, or search information, or understand what the've found or all of these together. How can one so blatantly misrepresent the facts and say evolutionists don't claim their theory to be fact? These most famous evolutionary biologists clearly state that evolution is fact. They also say that we, creationists, are stupid.

First of all, no one is saying you are stupid! Last I checked on here, Gebre was the only one resorting to openly calling people stupid.

Secondly, according to Richard Dawkins, "a scientific theorum such as evolution or heliocentrism is a theory that conforms to the Oxford dictionary's 'Sense 1': '[It] has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.' A scientific theorum has not been - cannot be - proved in the way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the 'theory' that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact.*" (P.13, "The Greatest Show on Earth"... note Dawkins uses the word "theorum", borrowing from math but changing the spelling to get his point across).

It must be nice for Richard to be able to create definitions outside the original confines of a word or a field of study. As you stated, the spelling even changed. I wish I had know this is school. My grades would have been perfect as a result of changing everything to fit my needs that week.

Someone should point out, for sanity sake, the Earth is not round. It's spherical (Oblate spheroid). Just sayin... People as "smart" as ol Rich should know that starting your own religion requires you at least get your basic geometric shapes accurate if you want people to take you seriously.

Theodosius Dobzhansky in his "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Quote

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

R. C. Lewontin

Quote

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory

People here think that creationists eaither can't read, or write, or search information, or understand what the've found or all of these together. How can one so blatantly misrepresent the facts and say evolutionists don't claim their theory to be fact? These most famous evolutionary biologists clearly state that evolution is fact. They also say that we, creationists, are stupid.

First of all, no one is saying you are stupid! Last I checked on here, Gebre was the only one resorting to openly calling people stupid.

Secondly, according to Richard Dawkins, "a scientific theorum such as evolution or heliocentrism is a theory that conforms to the Oxford dictionary's 'Sense 1': '[It] has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.' A scientific theorum has not been - cannot be - proved in the way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the 'theory' that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact.*" (P.13, "The Greatest Show on Earth"... note Dawkins uses the word "theorum", borrowing from math but changing the spelling to get his point across).

It must be nice for Richard to be able to create definitions outside the original confines of a word or a field of study. As you stated, the spelling even changed. I wish I had know this is school. My grades would have been perfect as a result of changing everything to fit my needs that week.

Someone should point out, for sanity sake, the Earth is not round. It's spherical (Oblate spheroid). Just sayin... People as "smart" as ol Rich should know that starting your own religion requires you at least get your basic geometric shapes accurate if you want people to take you seriously.

I think Richard Dawkins should talk to Richard Gross

Just read the book, how about? He used his own spelling to make a point, borrowing from mathematics. That doesn't make him (or the majority of biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, science professors, etc.) wrong. But I've noticed here that your mainstay of argument seems to be to playfully side step answering any tough questions or making any valid points about evolution, and instead pointing out the little semantic errors (or in this case, strategies) of others.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 10:43:08 AM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

I think you're missing the actual gist of the analogy. In legal work, to "disprove" an accusation, one need only show reasonable doubt. The defense needs convincingly to show why the accusation might not be correct.

In science, not only does a counter-hypothesis need to show how a current theory might be incorrect, but it must show how a better hypothesis more consistently explains all observations.

Furthermore, the proof always must be supplied by the one making the claim, not the other way around.

Yet more evidence (er... proof?) of your ignorance of how science works.

If you are unable to support the claims, just say so. Getting upset and ranting does you no good. It simply reveals the weakness of your argument.

I know how science is supposed to work and how it was once used, but clearly that is not what you are speaking about.

I promise you, I am neither getting upset nor ranting (although I do get a wee bit exasperated by this thread, from time to time). What Chrevbel said was correct. In science, in order to replace an overwhelmingly supported theory (*theory as in Scientific theory, not theory as in a wildly speculative, thought-of-while-drunk-on-whiskey "theory"), such as that of evolution, people must bring alternatives and evidence to support them, or valid refutations of evolution. They can't just dance around, playing semantic escape artist. People have posted heaps of evidence here throughout this thread. And it is very accessible elsewhere. I will post some more shortly for your consideration.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 11:08:26 AM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

1) First of all, the Cambrian Explosion is often thought to have occurred almost instantaneously, but we are still talking about several millions years... "But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years."

Quote

The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.

2) Fossilization is a rare occurrence requiring just the right set of conditions. Therefore "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. But even so, there are many transitional fossils, and the number is perpetually growing (while transitional gaps become smaller). Here are pretty good pages dealing with transitional species (aka “missing links”):

3-5) I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to competently address these questions (not sure anyone can?), but I am quite certain that science hasn't figured out how living cells came to be on Earth. Anyway, evolution only addresses the diversification of life on earth, not its genesis.

6) I wouldn't say there are experiments that "prove" evolution, but certainly some that strongly support evolution.

For instance, Belyaev's experiments with silver foxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_foxAll of our modern dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. If we can make this much change from wolves so quickly, what can nature achieve when left to its own adaptive devices?

Then there is the fact that scientists have to come up with new antibiotics because bacteria evolve resistances to old ones.

7) I have a few examples, actually, that are best explained by evolution.

Here is a good one... the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve.

From the Evolution community page on facebook: “This nerve connects the brain with the larynx (voice box). Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve means there's damage to our voice/speech box. Hence, the obvious path for the nerve to travel is straight from the brain into the neck and into the larynx, right? If you were designing the animal from scratch and "intending" that mammals would arise someday, that makes all the sense in the world. In mammals, however, the nerve goes from the brain down past the heart and then to the larynx. This is because that's the way it was in earlier fish-like ancestors, in whom making a trip around the heart was indeed the closest route from the brain to the larynx. But as the neck evolved and lengthened in a mammalian-like morphology, the current structure could not be made to start from scratch and the nerve developed its current highly unnecessary circuitous route. And nowhere is it more prominent than in Giraffes, where the nerve had to travel just 2 inches but instead makes a long tour all the way down the neck, and back up.”

In my opinion, this is clear cut evidence supporting evolution (rather than design).

There are other examples of "bad design" in nature that are best explained by evolution. Take the bad, injury prone lower-backs of humans, for instance (that haven't yet caught up to our always walking upright). Or the existence of wisdom teeth. Or the human prostate gland, that tends to swell, squeeze the tubing, and become cancerous.

Here's another: Vestigial Organs and Structures"Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles."--(Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133)

Take, for instance, dolphins with leg buds. Like whales, their ancestors were land mammals. There are also blind cave-dwelling creatures with useless vestigial eyes.

Vestigial organs are best explained by common ancestors (evolution). Their existence really makes no sense otherwise.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2012, 12:05:04 PM by stavros_388 »

Logged

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post? Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof. Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.

Or you could give a clear definitive answer instead of what has been given. "Because" isn't proof. I would be happy for number 6. At least then The scientific method would apply and we could start calling it science. Of course, it would have to be duplicated several times with the same results.

Hi Kerdy,

My answer to 6 may not satisfy you, so what precisely are you looking for since the question itself is vague.

I would also like to note (not for you necessarily): I do not understand what the issue is with 1; I would reverse the notion of 2 to ask how one can explain the presence of innumerable transitional forms; that 3 lies in the realm of abiogenesis which evolution cannot reasonably explain; I explained 4 previously which partly lies outside of the realm of Darwinian evolution; that 5 is also in the realm of abiogenesis; and with item 7, Ativan reiterated my question to him. I also provided an alternative explanation to that question.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31

Theodosius Dobzhansky in his "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Quote

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

R. C. Lewontin

Quote

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory

People here think that creationists eaither can't read, or write, or search information, or understand what the've found or all of these together. How can one so blatantly misrepresent the facts and say evolutionists don't claim their theory to be fact? These most famous evolutionary biologists clearly state that evolution is fact. They also say that we, creationists, are stupid.

First of all, no one is saying you are stupid! Last I checked on here, Gebre was the only one resorting to openly calling people stupid.

Secondly, according to Richard Dawkins, "a scientific theorum such as evolution or heliocentrism is a theory that conforms to the Oxford dictionary's 'Sense 1': '[It] has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.' A scientific theorum has not been - cannot be - proved in the way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the 'theory' that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact.*" (P.13, "The Greatest Show on Earth"... note Dawkins uses the word "theorum", borrowing from math but changing the spelling to get his point across).

It must be nice for Richard to be able to create definitions outside the original confines of a word or a field of study. As you stated, the spelling even changed. I wish I had know this is school. My grades would have been perfect as a result of changing everything to fit my needs that week.

Someone should point out, for sanity sake, the Earth is not round. It's spherical (Oblate spheroid). Just sayin... People as "smart" as ol Rich should know that starting your own religion requires you at least get your basic geometric shapes accurate if you want people to take you seriously.

I think Richard Dawkins should talk to Richard Gross

Just read the book, how about? He used his own spelling to make a point, borrowing from mathematics. That doesn't make him (or the majority of biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, science professors, etc.) wrong. But I've noticed here that your mainstay of argument seems to be to playfully side step answering any tough questions or making any valid points about evolution, and instead pointing out the little semantic errors (or in this case, strategies) of others.

As I stated, the one making the initial claim must provide the proof. If you can't, just admit as much and don't blame others for imagined slights against your hypothesis. When the ones making the claim fail to convince, the burden of proof does not move to the opposing group. It's what we like to call, "real life."

What I would like to know is why God would waste millions of years to allow something to evolve when He can simple speak it into existence the exact way He wants it...like He said He did.

Well, I don't know, but in that case we at least get the same effect eventually. Whereas with disease, it just seems more theologically sound to say it's a direct result of the Fall. I could imagine, for instance, what we now call disease being created good and later corrupted. But how can you fit that sort of thing into an evolutionary narrative and still believe Genesis? I don't mean just in a literal way. I have seen plausible non-literal readings of Genesis. But evolution seems to require more than a non-literal reading of Genesis. It seems to require denial.

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

LOL! True!

Selam

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

Like I said, semantic games. Instead of addressing any of the evidence here presented, you just tap dance around and make bad jokes. Anyway, I lack the patience that others on this thread have exhibited. I leave you and Gebre to your self-deception. Enjoy.

Logged

"This is the cross - to become dead to the whole world, to suffer sorrows, temptations and other passions of Christ; in bearing this cross with complete patience, we imitate Christ's passion and thus glorify our God the Father as His sons in grace and co-heirs of Christ." --St. Symeon the New Theologian

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post?

You can't answer even 1 of these questions. I've seen your answers. I really don't like to waste my time on a book which is going to be scientific failure. But you can, of course if you can, recommend an article or a post here (since you claim all these questions were answered) that supposedly answers any of these questions.

Quote

Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof. Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.

I can go back to page one but only if you will promise that any of these questions were answered and you don't "just" say this. Basically your task is simple: 1) you name which of the given questions was answered in your theory; 2) Point to the article or to your or somebody else's proof and we will go from there.

First of all, no one is saying you are stupid! Last I checked on here, Gebre was the only one resorting to openly calling people stupid.

I'm not really interested in my IQ. I'd rather see your proof of darwinian theory. But all I see is nonsense philosophical discussion that has nothing common with science. I think most of Darwin's followers understand neither science no philosophy.

Quote

Secondly, according to Richard Dawkins, "a scientific theorum such as evolution or heliocentrism is a theory that conforms to the Oxford dictionary's 'Sense 1': '[It] has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; [it is] a statement of what are held to be general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.' A scientific theorum has not been - cannot be - proved in the way a mathematical theorem is proved. But common sense treats it as a fact in the same sense as the 'theory' that the Earth is round and not flat is a fact, and the theory that green plants obtain energy from the sun is a fact.*" (P.13, "The Greatest Show on Earth"... note Dawkins uses the word "theorum", borrowing from math but changing the spelling to get his point across).

This whole logic is lame and nothing better is expected from Dawkins. If a theory is a fact in the same sense as the earth roundness is a fact then it is a fact and no further proof is necessary. Dawkins can't even distinguish a theory from observation. I wonder why his followers have same problem.

Secondly, I said this in response to Chrevbel who at least seems to be able to distinguish between fact and hypothesis. He says:

Quote

And I've pretty clearly stated that I consider evolution (or more precisely, natural selection) to be no more permanent than any any other hypothesis or theory in science. It is susceptible to being revised or rejected if found to be inconsistent with our observations. I can provide potential observations that would falsify the theory, among them being the discovery that mammals have existed the entire time that life has existed, for example.

Earth's roundness will not be revised and rejected. Earth's roundness for him will be a fact. On the other hand evolutionary theory would be hypothesis. He clearly sees difference between the two as opposed to Dawkins. Main point is this though: The quotes I've found puts him in contradiction with reality. He says one thing and reality is another thing. This was the purpose of those quotes. BTW, He is not doing this first time. He has done it previously too when he claimed that no evolutionists considered mutations to be random. While all of them (or at least many of them) consider mutations to be random.

Just read the book, how about? He used his own spelling to make a point, borrowing from mathematics. That doesn't make him (or the majority of biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, science professors, etc.) wrong. But I've noticed here that your mainstay of argument seems to be to playfully side step answering any tough questions or making any valid points about evolution, and instead pointing out the little semantic errors (or in this case, strategies) of others.

How can you Orthodox Christian believe Dawkins, world's one of the worst atheist and blasphemer, and deny Orthodox Saints teachings on these? This question you can pass by

This question you should answer since you claim scientific value of that theory: I have made several valid points which shows how evolution is nonsense and how it is unable to actually explain life's origin. I did not see you or anybody else answering: why is it? because you have no answer or for some other reason?

What Chrevbel said was correct. In science, in order to replace an overwhelmingly supported theory (*theory as in Scientific theory, not theory as in a wildly speculative, thought-of-while-drunk-on-whiskey "theory"), such as that of evolution, people must bring alternatives and evidence to support them, or valid refutations of evolution.

How about this: darwinism needs no alternative since it's total fallacy?! The truth is this: God created universe and everything in it from smallest to largest. The creation speaks of its Creator. If you want to scientifically arrive to this conclusion it's simple. Science is based on induction principle: If we see something exhibiting features of design and intelligence we conclude it was designed. This must be generalized as science does this all the time (except of course when it comes to God) and it is main scientific principle.

Quote

They can't just dance around, playing semantic escape artist. People have posted heaps of evidence here throughout this thread. And it is very accessible elsewhere. I will post some more shortly for your consideration.

I'm asking again and again: what evidence? Is this so called ERV evidence of it? Is so called "fusion" part of that pile of evidence? What evidence are we talking about?

What I would like to know is why God would waste millions of years to allow something to evolve when He can simple speak it into existence the exact way He wants it...like He said He did.

Well, I don't know, but in that case we at least get the same effect eventually. Whereas with disease, it just seems more theologically sound to say it's a direct result of the Fall. I could imagine, for instance, what we now call disease being created good and later corrupted. But how can you fit that sort of thing into an evolutionary narrative and still believe Genesis? I don't mean just in a literal way. I have seen plausible non-literal readings of Genesis. But evolution seems to require more than a non-literal reading of Genesis. It seems to require denial.

I'm not sure, but it sounds as if you are on the right path. You present very good food for thought.

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

Like I said, semantic games. Instead of addressing any of the evidence here presented, you just tap dance around and make bad jokes. Anyway, I lack the patience that others on this thread have exhibited. I leave you and Gebre to your self-deception. Enjoy.

If you prefer, we can return to the legal analogy for a moment. You have presented your case to the jury. Multiple charts, experts, and so on. You feel confident the opposing team had a weak foundation and with all of your glitter, Pomp and Circumstance, victory is all but assured. You have even praised the jury on how intelligent and wise they appear after being glued during your presentations.

Only, when they return and the foreman reads the verdict, all of your confidence flees as you realize you just lost your case. During interviews after, jury members say, "Well, they did a great job, their charts sure were pretty and they used a lot of big words, but they just didnt convince us evolution has actually happened. They didn't have one single piece of evidence which made be not have a doubt, so they failed to present their case in a way we could vote in their favor. If they had any real proof, we certainly would have voted for them."

If reaction in this thread is any indication to your reaction, during your interview, you would accuse them of not listening, being blind to the "facts" and being poorly educated ignoramuses. Never realizing, the fault is at your very feet.

I'm beginning to see some correlation between complaints of what the Roman Catholics did with their theology/dogma (Transubstantiation) and what people are currently doing with science/creation (evolution).

1) First of all, the Cambrian Explosion is often thought to have occurred almost instantaneously, but we are still talking about several millions years... "But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years."

Quote

The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.

Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.

I don't care what it's called explosion or not. Here's what is important: there's nothing developing for over 3.5 billion years then "many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion". From single celled organisms we have instantaneous appearance of complex multi-cellular organisms. Evolution does not predict this. It's that simple. We should have gradual appearance of organisms from simple to more complex. Here to save theory you make ad hoc revision of your theory. You've got to speculate that the rate of mutations all of a sudden increases manifold. Now: other than ad hoc tweaking and circular argumentation where's the evidence that such a dramatic increase of mutation rates did happen? Since I'm sure you are going to keep repeating circular argument I will point out again: you can't assume that evolution has occurred and thus to explain findings we have to stipulate increase in the rate of mutations. Quite opposite. You will have to show me some other evidence of this which will not be even tacitly assuming evolutionary theory. Next question is this: if you increase mutation rate that fast today (say with radiation) you will not get anything other than lifeless mutants. This is experimental fact. So why should I assume that something that is detrimental today was crucially important for life some time ago?

I'm going to quote again your link:

Quote

Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes.

What research is this?

Quote

2) Fossilization is a rare occurrence requiring just the right set of conditions. Therefore "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. But even so, there are many transitional fossils, and the number is perpetually growing (while transitional gaps become smaller). Here are pretty good pages dealing with transitional species (aka “missing links”):

Again, I don't need any philosophy. Give me science. You (or your source) say "Fossilization is a rare occurrence requiring just the right set of conditions".

What laws govern fossilization and how can I predict what can be fossilized and what can't? How can I know what are these "just the right set of conditions"? Again and again: so far, as always, your arguments are circular, begging the questions. You assume that darwinism is true and deduce statements about fossilization from that premise while darwinism should be the conclusion. Let's start from fossilization without darwinism in it. If you give me real theory about fossilization that is proved in practice and if such theory will predict current fossil findings then that will be something.

For the transitional species I don't think you understand how much is missing. Let's start from simple question: it is assumed that amphibians were evolved from fish. What is the amphibian and the fish that are closest to each other? We will look at how different they are and how much change should have happened in their anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and DNA structure in order to get from one to the other by gradual changes.

Quote

3-5) I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to competently address these questions (not sure anyone can?), but I am quite certain that science hasn't figured out how living cells came to be on Earth. Anyway, evolution only addresses the diversification of life on earth, not its genesis.

This alone is enough to stop talking about darwinism. Since this theory predicts evolutionary formation of new proteins, sub-cellular structures and cells themselves and you have even no theoretical clue how this happened you should not be talking about anything else.

Quote

6) I wouldn't say there are experiments that "prove" evolution, but certainly some that strongly support evolution.

For instance, Belyaev's experiments with silver foxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_foxAll of our modern dog breeds are the result of artificial selection. If we can make this much change from wolves so quickly, what can nature achieve when left to its own adaptive devices?

Then there is the fact that scientists have to come up with new antibiotics because bacteria evolve resistances to old ones.

What does domestication has in common with evolution? What does new breed formation has in common with evolution? In these cases (more correctly in case of breeding new forms) man directs the process by shuffling the existing genes - that's it. However many times you shuffle these genes you get same and same species. Humans bred animals for thousands of years and dogs have remained dogs. None of them fly today. None of them have horns today and so on. Besides, if your argument is "If we can make this much change from wolves so quickly, what can nature achieve when left to its own adaptive devices?" then evolution doesn't actually require billions of years and we should be seeing it over hundreds or thousands of years.

Next, how is development of bacterial resistance an example of evolution or supports evolutionary theory in any ways? My suspicion is that you actually don't know biology and know not much about resistance mechanisms. Do not give me some links. Bring you point here first and then point to supportive articles.

7) I have a few examples, actually, that are best explained by evolution.

Quote

Here is a good one... the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve.

From the Evolution community page on facebook: “This nerve connects the brain with the larynx (voice box). Damage to the recurrent laryngeal nerve means there's damage to our voice/speech box. Hence, the obvious path for the nerve to travel is straight from the brain into the neck and into the larynx, right? If you were designing the animal from scratch and "intending" that mammals would arise someday, that makes all the sense in the world. In mammals, however, the nerve goes from the brain down past the heart and then to the larynx. This is because that's the way it was in earlier fish-like ancestors, in whom making a trip around the heart was indeed the closest route from the brain to the larynx. But as the neck evolved and lengthened in a mammalian-like morphology, the current structure could not be made to start from scratch and the nerve developed its current highly unnecessary circuitous route. And nowhere is it more prominent than in Giraffes, where the nerve had to travel just 2 inches but instead makes a long tour all the way down the neck, and back up.”

Before you make any conclusion first tell and show more: 1) What are these early fish-like ancestors? Hopefully you are talking about something that is still living and given statement can be directly observed and studied. 2) What is embriogenesis of RLN? this is especially important. If we find something unexplained in its embriogenesis whole these argument is worthless. So I'm waiting for you to give me some details on these.

Quote

In my opinion, this is clear cut evidence supporting evolution (rather than design).

There are other examples of "bad design" in nature that are best explained by evolution. Take the bad, injury prone lower-backs of humans, for instance (that haven't yet caught up to our always walking upright). Or the existence of wisdom teeth. Or the human prostate gland, that tends to swell, squeeze the tubing, and become cancerous.

This are so unimportant arguments. Human's design delicate and ingenious pieces but nothing lasts forever. Everything has shelf-life. Do we still say that they are of bed design? Even if we say the fact is computers, cars, ships, trains and so on and so on are all designed and if they last 50 years that's something really good.

What about Adam and Eve. Did they not sin and did they not get punished? Did they not become mortal? You basically don't like God's design because we became mortal. After all Jesus Christ the Lord says nothing happens in the world without God. Why would God allow then bed things in any case whether through direct creation or through the imaginary evolution? For "theistic evolutionist"s there's no hope to come out of this predicament anyways. You should not be putting this type of arguments forward.

Quote

Here's another: Vestigial Organs and Structures"Vestigial organs and structures (also called vestigia, rudiments, or remnants) are reduced body parts or organs, often without visible function in the derived bearers, that were fully developed and functioning in earlier members of that phylogenetic lineage. These structures, sometimes described as atrophied or degenerate, are usually small in comparison with their relative size in ancestral generations or in closely related species. ... vestigial structures may have acquired new, less obvious functions that differ from the original ones. Hence, a vestigium should not generally be considered without function, or only with respect to its ancestral, adult roles."--(Encyclopedia of Evolution 2002, pp 1131-1133)

Take, for instance, dolphins with leg buds. Like whales, their ancestors were land mammals. There are also blind cave-dwelling creatures with useless vestigial eyes.

Vestigial organs are best explained by common ancestors (evolution). Their existence really makes no sense otherwise.

Are you 100 % sure that this organs have no important function that we are not able to recognize today? If these organs are "junk" why they are not species with useless parts screened out during evolution?

In fact forget about this questions. I just looked at your link which is full of fallacious reasoning. 1) Give me very clear definition of vestige; 2) point to e specific vestige and 3) show me the reasoning which leads to conclusion that such a finding supports evolution.

Why whould God allow development of malaria through evolution? Does it make God different whether He created malaria directly or let it evolve?

Just curious.

It's hard to see how malaria, and disease more generally, can have resulted from human sin if every organism is the way it is because of one continuous and amoral process. It's not difficult for me to imagine them originally having some positive niche. Genesis tells us of a basic change in the world, right? Without the change toward corruption we have God directly designing things meant to prey on and weaken humanity, and this since humanity was young. So how do we make it fit together? Would you say that such things only began to harm us after we fell from grace, that Genesis doesn't mean there was ever really a time without human pain, disease, and death, or something else? That's the main problem I see. Biology is well and good, but I think (Christian) proponents of evolution need to be willing to deal with the theological issues too, in a way that preserves the main thrust of Scripture.

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

I would suggest that you think about this supposition. As stated quite a few posts above this one, there is no reason to fund very many people (in the area of research) in the field of evolution and it would be a waste of tax payers money to do so. Unless your grants deal with fisheries or animal husbandry, or if you are fortunate and one of the few that can obtain grants in ecological studies, the career prospects of a student in evolutionary biology is dismal. They were done in by the advances in whole genomic sequencing. If you think there is hope for them I know a number of them who would appreciate your sage advice and encouragement.

In regard as to what you want to know about Ativan's item 6, I will await your acquisition of your repaired computer (although your posts are much longer than mine already).

The other thing Kerdy is that I am not a threat to you (both intellectually or emotionally). I appreciate discussion, if you want to solely debate, you should continue to ignore me.

Why whould God allow development of malaria through evolution? Does it make God different whether He created malaria directly or let it evolve?

Just curious.

It's hard to see how malaria, and disease more generally, can have resulted from human sin if every organism is the way it is because of one continuous and amoral process. It's not difficult for me to imagine them originally having some positive niche. Genesis tells us of a basic change in the world, right? Without the change toward corruption we have God directly designing things meant to prey on and weaken humanity, and this since humanity was young. So how do we make it fit together? Would you say that such things only began to harm us after we fell from grace, that Genesis doesn't mean there was ever really a time without human pain, disease, and death, or something else? That's the main problem I see. Biology is well and good, but I think (Christian) proponents of evolution need to be willing to deal with the theological issues too, in a way that preserves the main thrust of Scripture.

It kind of goes against the entire mysticism aspects of being Orthodox, doesn't it?

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

I would suggest that you think about this supposition. As stated quite a few posts above this one, there is no reason to fund very many people (in the area of research) in the field of evolution and it would be a waste of tax payers money to do so. Unless your grants deal with fisheries or animal husbandry, or if you are fortunate and one of the few that can obtain grants in ecological studies, the career prospects of a student in evolutionary biology is dismal. They were done in by the advances in whole genomic sequencing. If you think there is hope for them I know a number of them who would appreciate your sage advice and encouragement.

In regard as to what you want to know about Ativan's item 6, I will await your acquisition of your repaired computer (although your posts are much longer than mine already).

The other thing Kerdy is that I am not a threat to you (both intellectually or emotionally). I appreciate discussion, if you want to solely debate, you should continue to ignore me.

No one here or in evolutionary biology is a threat to me. Why would you make such an assumption? I don't like debate either, so I would advise production of proof or removal of the word fact. In addition, not calling people who understand but disagree, ignorant of science.

I'm confused as to why you need to wait for me to get my computer for you to answer the question. Did I miss a post?

3 lies in the realm of abiogenesis which evolution cannot reasonably explain

I hope you both did not intentionally gloss over the argument I have presented several pages back. I will quote it again:

Quote

When it comes to evolutionary theory (ET) abiogenesis (AG) somehow stands alone. Evolutionists want us to believe that abiogenesis is absolutely different animal while in principle it is not. Both abiogenesis an evolutionary theory require (at least what they think) huge time scale and certain types of chemical reaction. Given enough time scale this chemical reactions will guarantee the formation of new cell (in case of AG) and new organisms (in case of ET). Chemical reactions should be the substrate on which AG will guarantee new cell formation. There's one difference though. This is the environment where these reactions should take place. Namely in AG case environment is at least until certain point nature. In case of ET the environment is a cell where very specific conditions are created. I will not discuss it here now but still there's certain similarities that these 2 environments share. In the end all these in my opinion puts both theories on the same scale and if one claims ET works then one can also claim AG works. There's no excuse that "If we can't explain how AG will work that does not mean ET has same problems".

But most important is that AG is just logically absurd and practically impossible. AG says that cell somehow was derived through the evolution of inorganic nature. All theories of AG are vague about how this is possible. But I say it is impossible. Cell can't function at all if it has all the elements to perform its function. Even most simple cell needs several hundred (if you want several dozens) proteins and DNA chain which will encode all these proteins. Logic here is very simple and only obstinate person will try to disregard it. If there was anything before the functioning cell that could not maintain its environment, that did not possess all proteins and all DNA, it would be dead. This means every single prior generation must have been cell even if it was simpler then next generation. All AG theories break this principle. Say RNA world theory (RNAW). In order for any RNA to maintain its function it needs cellular machinery. It can't replicate unless it is in a special environment and thus it will be destroyed without such an environment. In nature such an environment is only cell.

In conclusion, no cell can be formed by gradual modification of inorganic nature. It may only be formed if all chemicals of a given cell are formed at the same time and under the same "hood". i.e. if under cellular membrane all proteins and DNA/RNA and whole cellular machinery come together. This is called miracle and it has no chance of happening. Even if we assume such thing is possible to be formed randomly (the chance of which would be astronomically law), I don't think ET-ists would use it as theory. Besides if one cell can be formed by such miracle, this will obviate the need for ET since any other cell can be formed through such miracle. So ET-ist are stuck with miracles or they have to find the way out of it. One way is to say that life was seeded on the earth. Of course one has to get whole cell from out-of-space and not just components (like proteins, DNA and so on). If only components came such a way it would still be destroyed without cellular environment. Thus ET-ist have 2 options: 1) Cell was created here on earth through miracle 2) Cell was seeded from out-of-space to the earth. Second one is so obviously absurd that it does not even deserve any discussion (it still requires explanation of origin of earthly cell in a completely unknown environment). It requires more miracles and most astute science fiction writer to come up with some outline.

However much you want to avoid this and put abiogenesis beyond the realms of evolution it will be useless. Cells either were created instantaneously or not. If they were created instantaneously then all cells could've been created in same manner and as materialists like to point to it it will be, in this case, unnecessary to refer to any evolution through Occam's razor principle.

Now the question to you is: is there any possible way that cell could have been created not instantaneously? There's my logic above. When you find problem with it let me know. If you find none, then let me know your conclusion.

Quote

I would also like to note (not for you necessarily): I do not understand what the issue is with 1;

See my response to stavros about #1.

Quote

I would reverse the notion of 2 to ask how one can explain the presence of innumerable transitional forms;

It is predicted by Darwin's theory. Simple logic: if things change small by small and you have big difference between 2 forms then there must be many different forms in between. This even was pointed out by Darwin himself. See his book "on the origin of species", namely chapter (5 or 6) where he talks about the problems with his theory and possible explanations.

Quote

I explained 4 previously which partly lies outside of the realm of Darwinian evolution;

1) Where did you explain it? 2) If your explanation lies outside darwinians evolution why do you need to invoke another mechanism (namely darwinian mechanism) for evolution (remember Occam's razor?)?

Quote

that 5 is also in the realm of abiogenesis;

No, it's not. This is partially due to my poorly asked question. My question was not about first protein's appearance but about new proteins that should be necessarily formed from species to species. For example how did hemoglobin appeared?

Quote

and with item 7, Ativan reiterated my question to him. I also provided an alternative explanation to that question.

What you mean by I reiterated your question and you also provided alternative explanation? Did I miss something?

And finally: 6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

I would suggest that you think about this supposition. As stated quite a few posts above this one, there is no reason to fund very many people (in the area of research) in the field of evolution and it would be a waste of tax payers money to do so. Unless your grants deal with fisheries or animal husbandry, or if you are fortunate and one of the few that can obtain grants in ecological studies, the career prospects of a student in evolutionary biology is dismal. They were done in by the advances in whole genomic sequencing. If you think there is hope for them I know a number of them who would appreciate your sage advice and encouragement.

In regard as to what you want to know about Ativan's item 6, I will await your acquisition of your repaired computer (although your posts are much longer than mine already).

The other thing Kerdy is that I am not a threat to you (both intellectually or emotionally). I appreciate discussion, if you want to solely debate, you should continue to ignore me.

No one here or in evolutionary biology is a threat to me. Why would you make such an assumption? I don't like debate either, so I would advise production of proof or removal of the word fact. In addition, not calling people who understand but disagree, ignorant of science.

I'm confused as to why you need to wait for me to get my computer for you to answer the question. Did I miss a post?

Great to hear Kerdy. I think you did miss a post. I confess my writing style tends to be somewhat cryptic but you will get used to it I hope.

In both you can be consistently wrong, never prove anything, blame outside influence for your mistakes and still get paid.

Except with the weather, you still have to admit when you were wrong, because even the least intelligent person knows if its raining or if the sun is shining, even if you tell them it isn't.

I would suggest that you think about this supposition. As stated quite a few posts above this one, there is no reason to fund very many people (in the area of research) in the field of evolution and it would be a waste of tax payers money to do so. Unless your grants deal with fisheries or animal husbandry, or if you are fortunate and one of the few that can obtain grants in ecological studies, the career prospects of a student in evolutionary biology is dismal. They were done in by the advances in whole genomic sequencing. If you think there is hope for them I know a number of them who would appreciate your sage advice and encouragement.

In regard as to what you want to know about Ativan's item 6, I will await your acquisition of your repaired computer (although your posts are much longer than mine already).

The other thing Kerdy is that I am not a threat to you (both intellectually or emotionally). I appreciate discussion, if you want to solely debate, you should continue to ignore me.

No one here or in evolutionary biology is a threat to me. Why would you make such an assumption? I don't like debate either, so I would advise production of proof or removal of the word fact. In addition, not calling people who understand but disagree, ignorant of science.

I'm confused as to why you need to wait for me to get my computer for you to answer the question. Did I miss a post?

Great to hear Kerdy. I think you did miss a post. I confess my writing style tends to be somewhat cryptic but you will get used to it I hope.

No problem. But if you point me to your answer to #6, I'll be more than happy to look it over.

Why whould God allow development of malaria through evolution? Does it make God different whether He created malaria directly or let it evolve?

Just curious.

It's hard to see how malaria, and disease more generally, can have resulted from human sin if every organism is the way it is because of one continuous and amoral process. It's not difficult for me to imagine them originally having some positive niche. Genesis tells us of a basic change in the world, right? Without the change toward corruption we have God directly designing things meant to prey on and weaken humanity, and this since humanity was young. So how do we make it fit together? Would you say that such things only began to harm us after we fell from grace, that Genesis doesn't mean there was ever really a time without human pain, disease, and death, or something else? That's the main problem I see. Biology is well and good, but I think (Christian) proponents of evolution need to be willing to deal with the theological issues too, in a way that preserves the main thrust of Scripture.

It kind of goes against the entire mysticism aspects of being Orthodox, doesn't it?

Are you saying exegesis, apologetics, showing that Orthodoxy is not contrary to reason or scientific discovery...all somehow undermine its holy mystery? But what else is there to do? If no decent reply is given, educated non-Christian persons will think there is no decent reply.

Besides, this can be taken to absurdities. Jesus seems to refer to himself as subordinate to the Father, and yet you presumably believe all of the Persons are co-equal. Would you explain that? Or plead mysticism again?

Why whould God allow development of malaria through evolution? Does it make God different whether He created malaria directly or let it evolve?

Just curious.

It's hard to see how malaria, and disease more generally, can have resulted from human sin if every organism is the way it is because of one continuous and amoral process. It's not difficult for me to imagine them originally having some positive niche. Genesis tells us of a basic change in the world, right? Without the change toward corruption we have God directly designing things meant to prey on and weaken humanity, and this since humanity was young. So how do we make it fit together? Would you say that such things only began to harm us after we fell from grace, that Genesis doesn't mean there was ever really a time without human pain, disease, and death, or something else? That's the main problem I see. Biology is well and good, but I think (Christian) proponents of evolution need to be willing to deal with the theological issues too, in a way that preserves the main thrust of Scripture.

So how do I fit it together?

1) In faith those questions are worthless. It is of no help to near Jesus Christ. 2) In science such questions are not even asked, especially in evolutionary science. You will be ridiculed if you asked such questions in science.This is how I fit them together.

Why whould God allow development of malaria through evolution? Does it make God different whether He created malaria directly or let it evolve?

Just curious.

It's hard to see how malaria, and disease more generally, can have resulted from human sin if every organism is the way it is because of one continuous and amoral process. It's not difficult for me to imagine them originally having some positive niche. Genesis tells us of a basic change in the world, right? Without the change toward corruption we have God directly designing things meant to prey on and weaken humanity, and this since humanity was young. So how do we make it fit together? Would you say that such things only began to harm us after we fell from grace, that Genesis doesn't mean there was ever really a time without human pain, disease, and death, or something else? That's the main problem I see. Biology is well and good, but I think (Christian) proponents of evolution need to be willing to deal with the theological issues too, in a way that preserves the main thrust of Scripture.

It kind of goes against the entire mysticism aspects of being Orthodox, doesn't it?

Are you saying exegesis, apologetics, showing that Orthodoxy is not contrary to reason or scientific discovery...all somehow undermine its holy mystery? But what else is there to do? If no decent reply is given, educated non-Christian persons will think there is no decent reply.

Besides, this can be taken to absurdities. Jesus seems to refer to himself as subordinate to the Father, and yet you presumably believe all of the Persons are co-equal. Would you explain that? Or plead mysticism again?

Ativan, your post is just too long for me when it is way past the time I need to get to sleep. Evolution does not logically apply to abiogenesis, despite anything you might say that it should. Could abiogenesis occur on Earth? Not that I can conceive based on the facts that I know. If you have an argument in support of abiogenesis, I will read it tomorrow morning.

3 lies in the realm of abiogenesis which evolution cannot reasonably explain

I hope you both did not intentionally gloss over the argument I have presented several pages back. I will quote it again:

Quote

When it comes to evolutionary theory (ET) abiogenesis (AG) somehow stands alone. Evolutionists want us to believe that abiogenesis is absolutely different animal while in principle it is not. Both abiogenesis an evolutionary theory require (at least what they think) huge time scale and certain types of chemical reaction. Given enough time scale this chemical reactions will guarantee the formation of new cell (in case of AG) and new organisms (in case of ET). Chemical reactions should be the substrate on which AG will guarantee new cell formation. There's one difference though. This is the environment where these reactions should take place. Namely in AG case environment is at least until certain point nature. In case of ET the environment is a cell where very specific conditions are created. I will not discuss it here now but still there's certain similarities that these 2 environments share. In the end all these in my opinion puts both theories on the same scale and if one claims ET works then one can also claim AG works. There's no excuse that "If we can't explain how AG will work that does not mean ET has same problems".

But most important is that AG is just logically absurd and practically impossible. AG says that cell somehow was derived through the evolution of inorganic nature. All theories of AG are vague about how this is possible. But I say it is impossible. Cell can't function at all if it has all the elements to perform its function. Even most simple cell needs several hundred (if you want several dozens) proteins and DNA chain which will encode all these proteins. Logic here is very simple and only obstinate person will try to disregard it. If there was anything before the functioning cell that could not maintain its environment, that did not possess all proteins and all DNA, it would be dead. This means every single prior generation must have been cell even if it was simpler then next generation. All AG theories break this principle. Say RNA world theory (RNAW). In order for any RNA to maintain its function it needs cellular machinery. It can't replicate unless it is in a special environment and thus it will be destroyed without such an environment. In nature such an environment is only cell.

In conclusion, no cell can be formed by gradual modification of inorganic nature. It may only be formed if all chemicals of a given cell are formed at the same time and under the same "hood". i.e. if under cellular membrane all proteins and DNA/RNA and whole cellular machinery come together. This is called miracle and it has no chance of happening. Even if we assume such thing is possible to be formed randomly (the chance of which would be astronomically law), I don't think ET-ists would use it as theory. Besides if one cell can be formed by such miracle, this will obviate the need for ET since any other cell can be formed through such miracle. So ET-ist are stuck with miracles or they have to find the way out of it. One way is to say that life was seeded on the earth. Of course one has to get whole cell from out-of-space and not just components (like proteins, DNA and so on). If only components came such a way it would still be destroyed without cellular environment. Thus ET-ist have 2 options: 1) Cell was created here on earth through miracle 2) Cell was seeded from out-of-space to the earth. Second one is so obviously absurd that it does not even deserve any discussion (it still requires explanation of origin of earthly cell in a completely unknown environment). It requires more miracles and most astute science fiction writer to come up with some outline.

However much you want to avoid this and put abiogenesis beyond the realms of evolution it will be useless. Cells either were created instantaneously or not. If they were created instantaneously then all cells could've been created in same manner and as materialists like to point to it it will be, in this case, unnecessary to refer to any evolution through Occam's razor principle.

Now the question to you is: is there any possible way that cell could have been created not instantaneously? There's my logic above. When you find problem with it let me know. If you find none, then let me know your conclusion.

Quote

I would also like to note (not for you necessarily): I do not understand what the issue is with 1;

See my response to stavros about #1.

Quote

I would reverse the notion of 2 to ask how one can explain the presence of innumerable transitional forms;

It is predicted by Darwin's theory. Simple logic: if things change small by small and you have big difference between 2 forms then there must be many different forms in between. This even was pointed out by Darwin himself. See his book "on the origin of species", namely chapter (5 or 6) where he talks about the problems with his theory and possible explanations.

Quote

I explained 4 previously which partly lies outside of the realm of Darwinian evolution;

1) Where did you explain it? 2) If your explanation lies outside darwinians evolution why do you need to invoke another mechanism (namely darwinian mechanism) for evolution (remember Occam's razor?)?

Quote

that 5 is also in the realm of abiogenesis;

No, it's not. This is partially due to my poorly asked question. My question was not about first protein's appearance but about new proteins that should be necessarily formed from species to species. For example how did hemoglobin appeared?

Quote

and with item 7, Ativan reiterated my question to him. I also provided an alternative explanation to that question.

What you mean by I reiterated your question and you also provided alternative explanation? Did I miss something?

And finally: 6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

Ativan, your post is just too long for me when it is way past the time I need to get to sleep. Evolution does not logically apply to abiogenesis, despite anything you might say that it should. Could abiogenesis occur on Earth? Not that I can conceive based on the facts that I know. If you have an argument in support of abiogenesis, I will read it tomorrow morning.

Sleep first and then read what've I said. Then let's go from there. I had argument against (not in support) all abiogenesis. I have argument that if abiogenesis is impossible then evolution is completely unnecessary.

No problem. But if you point me to your answer to #6, I'll be more than happy to look it over.

I was thinking of the acquisition of a novel function through random mutation in vitro. One can condense (time-wise) the evolutionary process in vitro. If you want something else, let me know what it is. If I have to start at the properties of water and individual amino acids and work our way up to DNA sequence conservation, protein secondary structure and tertiary structure, it may take a while.

The ball is in your court because I seriously do not know what you want.

Well, you seem to be saying that explanations are unwelcome because they compromise mysticism. So what should I be reading you to say?

An explanation is fine as long as it makes sense, but when it doesn't and a person fills in the blanks in an attempt to make it sound good, that's a problem. Sometimes, we need to just take God at His word. Maybe He designed it this way so we either do or don't, I can't say. If a theory is in violation of what God has said, as a Christian, which should we hold onto?

Orthodox have historically left many questions answered in a mystical sense. For instance, end time prophecy. Evolution is no different. Did you see my post about Catholic legalism? Same thing.

Actually, quite the opposite. We're frustrated at the warped view of science you have. That's all. As I said earlier, it's like talking to a Jehovah's witness who denies the Trinity because the word isn't in the Bible (not to mention having a warped Bible as well).

Most certainly you are frustrated because you are faced against the pile of contradictions. You think creationists are fool and devoid of mind. Forget about religion. Answer or show an answer for the following questions:

1) How do you explain Cambrian explosion?

2) How do you explain the absence of innumerable transitional forms?

3) How do you explain formation of cell?

4) How do you explain formation of new sub-cellular structures? Take any one of them, just one of them and show it in evolutionary plane.

5) How do you explain formation of any single protein? Take one of them, just one of them and explain.

6) Do you have any single experiment, name just one, that in any ways prove you theory?

7) Do you have any single observation, just name one, in the nature that is explained only by your theory and no other explanation will be adequate?

Better to stop all absurd talks and instead scientifically show the minimum evidence and logic.

May I recommend a book for you, because I cannot answer all these questions for you in one short post? Because otherwise your bombardment of questions is nothing but an emotional response, and really in the end, you like to make yourself a scientist and disregard such studies as proof. Or you can go back to page one of this thread and read everything that is written, and then ask questions that haven't been asked here before.

Or you could give a clear definitive answer instead of what has been given. "Because" isn't proof. I would be happy for number 6. At least then The scientific method would apply and we could start calling it science. Of course, it would have to be duplicated several times with the same results.

The experiment that compares human chromosome 2 to a fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes, not to mention overall 95% similarity. This is the same procedures used to determine degree of relation between individuals, hence, it has been used before in practical times. Kerdy, you quoted me linking a youtube video. For God's sake, there's the proof.

Also, Kitsmiller v. Dover Area School District proved the validity of teaching evolution in classes and the invalidity of teaching intelligent design. There has also been a video linked here of the proceedings of this court.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

Mina, not attacking you, but this statement is potentially misleading without context -- proven according to what standard?

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I would feel comfortable saying the initial process is extremely comparable; however, the end results are not always similar. The main difference is evidence in science and law can lead to different conclusions. For instance, if I know in my "gut" based off experience and the evidence I have found a person is guilty of a crime, but I can't find enough evidence to prove it, I'm done unless I find something convincing.

Well, here's the interesting bit. You say "enough evidence." Sometimes, you collect fingerprints alone, sometimes no fingerprints, and sometimes you have hair and video surveillance corroborating with witnesses. In science, some scientists might have a gut feeling of something, and call that a hypothesis. If there's "enough evidence", it can prove a viable theory, and is ready to be challenged among a court of scientists.

Quote

In science it is not always the case. Theories are based on what's available and people develop those ideas using a lot of guess work.

What do you mean "guess work"? You see, this is a problem. There is an "educated guess" or "gut feeling", but there's no mere guess work. There are ways in which evidence helps refine theory. But once you have a viable theory, there is really no longer pure guessing. There is some structure to prediction and looking for more evidence.

Quote

In addition, my job stops once the investigation is completed. The rest is up to the prosecution. If they can win the case, that's on them. In science, you have to do both the investigation AND win the case.

Aren't there investigators working for the District Attorney, and an investigator working for the Defense Attorney? Even during trial, maybe those investigators detective work aren't done yet, no?

Quote

Admittedly, that's harder, but the you have the freedom to come up with all sorts of ideas without proof (ie, how did the dinosaurs die - several thoughts on that).

You got this part wrong. Granted, "how did dinosaurs die" may not have "enough evidence," but it is still based off of evidence discovered. This is far from "coming up with all sorts of ideas without proof."

Quote

You working in science and me in law, we both understand the complications of evidence, but in my work I have to prove it.

Wrong again. Scientists do have to prove it. Again, "enough evidence" needs to be collected. Other scientists will try to prove against it with their own set of evidence, if they can find any.

Science is based on experimentations' ability for reproducibility, reliability, consistency, etc. If any of these conditions fail, it puts to question the theory or hypothesis tested.

I will need to reply appropriately with corrections later this week. I will finally have my computer then. I will say this. If you really want to compare evolutionary science to my work we can, but you will be disappointed when you fail to prove your case in the court room when you leave plenty of room for reasonable doubt. I don't have the luxury of not proving my case, you do.

Actually evolution was proven in a court room before. So, I don't understand how it's a failure. Look at earlier posts.

Ummm... that was a movie. I saw it. It's called "Inherit the Wind." Entertaining film, but hardly reality. But sadly, many people confuse fantasy with reality.

If you want an objective forensic analysis of evolutionary theory, read Philip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial. I mean, actually read it. Don't dismiss it out of prejudicial bias.

Selam

What in the world are you talking about? Never heard of that film before. Whatever!

One more time: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District destroyed that book's credentials, or as PBS likes to call it, "Intelligent Design on Trial". Sorry, Philip Johnson couldn't win in court.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2012, 02:03:53 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.